Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 13 for kids: Bites, Wine, and Rules

כריתות י״ג

📖 This daf asks when separate bites of impure food count together. It also discusses wine before entering the Temple and a case where one act of eating breaks several rules.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 13a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 13b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Keritot 13

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 13 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 13a, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. Granted, if Rabbi Meir is stringent — and holds one liable even when the eating takes longer than the time needed to eat a half-loaf, the Rabbis’ response makes sense: One is liable only if the eating takes no longer than that time.
  2. But if Rabbi Meir is lenient — and says that interruptions prevent the food from combining even within the time needed to eat a half-loaf, the Rabbis should have said, ‘If he took the time needed to eat a half-loaf, he is liable.’ That would imply liability even if he interrupted his eating.
  3. With forbidden fat and an unslaughtered carcass — he ate two half-olive-bulks of forbidden fat or of an unslaughtered carcass.
  4. Impure foods — the amount that disqualifies a person from eating teruma is a quarter-loaf.
  5. And impure liquids — they disqualify a person from eating teruma in the amount of a quarter-log.
  6. Even over the entire day — he took all day to eat a quarter-loaf, provided he ate each olive-bulk within the time needed to eat a half-loaf.
  7. They did not permit someone who ate less than the required amount to descend and immerse — because he does not need immersion. The Gemara later explains why this matters.
  8. They permitted her, and so on — this is explained later.
  9. Who had contact with someone impure through a corpse — a woman who touched a person with corpse impurity.
  10. A conclusive refutation of Ravnai — who said that each olive-bulk may be eaten separately within the allotted time.
  11. The child became impure from the milk — not from touching his mother: she touched someone with corpse impurity and therefore has first-degree impurity, while a person or vessel becomes impure only through contact with a primary source of impurity. The question, then, is whether he became impure from the milk, since eating a quarter-loaf of impure food disqualifies a person.
  12. And if you say it was not made susceptible to impurity — perhaps the milk was not impure because it has the status of food rather than liquid: a liquid intended as food is treated as food and must first be moistened to become susceptible to impurity.
  13. But it was made susceptible by the drop left on the nipple — that drop could make the rest of the milk passing over it susceptible to impurity, since the drop was not intended for the child to eat.
  14. Nursed in one vigorous suck — forcefully.
  15. The child’s mouth, which was full of milk — so a drop of milk must have been left on the nipple.
  16. Furthermore — perhaps milk has the status of a bodily discharge, like her saliva or urine, which the Gemara later says can impart severe impurity in any amount, as though it were part of her body.
  17. Whether the child wanted it or not — the baraita says the milk imparts impurity even if the child did not want to nurse. If milk had the status of food, how could it become impure against his wishes? It would not have been made susceptible to impurity in the required manner, which depends on the person’s consent.
  18. Marginal note: Rava said there are two answers to this, and so on — we see that a child does not always nurse forcefully and leave a drop of milk on the nipple.
  19. Furthermore, the place where milk comes out is a source of bodily discharge — so the milk should become impure without first being made susceptible, like her saliva.
  20. Against his wishes — if the child did not want to nurse, the milk that emerged against his wishes would not become susceptible to impurity through a drop left on the nipple; consent is required. Yet the baraita says it becomes impure. This suggests it is a bodily discharge—so why does her child remain pure?
  21. Rather, Rava said, and so on — the place where milk comes out is not a source of bodily discharge, so the milk must first be made susceptible to impurity. If the child did not want it, the milk remains pure because it was not made susceptible. The baraita can therefore be explained as referring to milk that emerged against his wishes. End of marginal note.
  22. The required amount — a quarter-log if the milk is a liquid, or a quarter-loaf if it is food. Perhaps the child did not nurse that much and is therefore pure. Even if milk is a bodily discharge, it does not impart impurity in any amount here: the mother herself has only first-degree impurity and cannot make a person impure through contact, so her milk has only the impurity of an ordinary liquid.
  23. A woman whose milk dripped, and so on — this refers to a woman who is menstruating. If milk is a bodily discharge, it becomes impure in any amount as though it were part of her body; why would it need to be made susceptible to impurity?
  24. And if you say, and so on—but it was taught — a baraita states explicitly that milk is not a bodily discharge.
  25. Foul mucus — foul phlegm.
Tosafot on Keritot 13a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Provided he ate each olive-bulk within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf — Each olive-bulk in the quarter-loaf must be eaten within that time, even if he pauses between portions. The whole quarter-loaf need not be eaten within that time, unlike an olive-bulk of forbidden fat or an unslaughtered carcass.
  2. They permitted a pregnant woman to eat less than the minimum measure because of danger — Why require danger? A person may ordinarily eat impure food, as shown by the teaching that someone with third-degree impurity may eat a stew containing a teruma mixture, and by the question in tractate Hullin: What needs saying about an impure person eating ordinary food? Here the concern is that she will eat teruma afterward; if she will not, she may eat even a full measure. And why not permit a full measure when there is danger? Sometimes she has only teruma available.
  3. Because of danger — Even according to Reish Lakish, who holds that less than the minimum measure is permitted by Torah law, the Sages prohibit it. They permitted it here because of the danger.
  4. Since the child nursed, the milk rendered him impure — But the milk became susceptible to impurity through a drop clinging to the nipple: the child will not suck up that drop, so it counts as liquid. Rabbi Yitzhak explains elsewhere that less than an egg-bulk cannot become susceptible to impurity. Yet there is less than an egg-bulk in the child’s mouth. The answer is that an egg-bulk is required by Torah law, but not by rabbinic law.
  5. Why is her child pure? — Since he nursed, the milk should render him impure and disqualify him from eating teruma.
  6. Rava said: There are two answers; furthermore, the source of milk is a bodily secretion — Since milk is a bodily secretion that imparts impurity like saliva, its being reserved for the child cannot make it food rather than liquid. Otherwise people might think it is not a bodily secretion and does not impart impurity like the saliva of a woman with a discharge. If so, why must the milk first become susceptible to impurity? At this point Rava mistakenly thought that milk counts as a bodily secretion because it forms a rounded drop and emerges like saliva, though it is not reabsorbed. His basis is the teaching that a woman’s milk imparts impurity whether it emerges willingly or unwillingly. It is therefore a liquid under Torah law and a bodily secretion, like that of a woman with a discharge. Otherwise it would impart impurity only when it emerges willingly, like animal milk. Although a woman’s milk differs from animal milk concerning blood from a wound, that alone would not make it impart impurity unwillingly. This is Rabbi Yitzhak’s explanation. Rashi instead says that milk is one of a woman’s bodily secretions, like her saliva and urine, and imparts severe impurity in any amount, like one of her limbs. But the case here concerns impurity from a corpse, which does not give a person impure bodily secretions. Moreover, even a menstruating woman does not impart impurity through her limbs, and the impurity of her saliva and urine requires a scriptural source. Rabbi Yitzhak’s explanation therefore seems preferable.
  7. Furthermore, the source of milk is a bodily secretion — This shows that liquids classified as bodily secretions make food susceptible to impurity even without consent, even when they come from a ritually pure person. The mishna discusses a pure woman’s milk, just as it discusses animal milk. If she were impure, its status as a bodily secretion would be irrelevant: all impure liquids make food susceptible, as taught in tractate Taharot. The reason is that bodily secretions impart impurity without consent and likewise make food susceptible without consent. This appears to apply only to impure liquids that come from the body; liquids rendered impure by a creeping animal follow the rules for pure liquids.
Rashi on Keritot 13b, in English Tab translation (26)
  1. His saliva, in any amount — As it is written, “If the zav spits on a pure person...” The laws of his discharge and urine are derived from the law of his saliva in tractate Niddah, chapter “The Blood of a Menstruating Woman.”
  2. And remained for the time it takes to eat a half-loaf — This implies that he remained in the Temple. That is why the Gemara asks why the mishna says “and remained.”
  3. Until forty days — Before then, the wine is sweet and does not intoxicate.
  4. They are warned against any amount, even wine fresh from the press — But one is not liable to death unless he drinks a quarter-log of wine that is forty days old.
  5. What do they disagree about? — The first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda.
  6. “Intoxicating drink” from “intoxicating drink” concerning a nazirite — The identical words are used to derive one law from the other.
  7. A dried fig from Ke’ila — Ke’ila is a place.
  8. He made a vow concerning his wife — He vowed not to benefit from her.
  9. He came before Rav Ashi — After eating and drinking.
  10. He would not appoint a lecturer on his behalf — To deliver the public lecture.
  11. From one festival day to the next — After celebrating the festival by eating and drinking, he waited until the next day because of intoxication.
  12. More than a quarter-log — Even if he added water, that amount still intoxicates; and I drank more than a quarter-log.
  13. And to distinguish — The verse says, “Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink when you enter the Tent of Meeting,” and then, “and to distinguish.” Thus, when you come to distinguish between holy and ordinary matters, too, you must not drink wine or intoxicating drink.
  14. Appraisals, valuations, and consecrated property — Those who have drunk wine may not assess these for their owners to redeem them, lest they assess them incorrectly.
  15. Issuing rulings — Those who have drunk wine may not rule on what is permitted or forbidden.
  16. Public lectures — Those who have drunk wine may not deliver them, because they include legal rulings.
  17. Halakha — A law given to Moses at Sinai.
  18. The verse says, “And to teach” — This excludes studying the Mishna: one does not issue a legal ruling directly from a mishna. Therefore, someone who has drunk wine may study it.
  19. Rabbi Yosi says: Perhaps even Talmud study — Perhaps that, too, is forbidden? The verse says, “And to teach”: only issuing a practical legal ruling is forbidden.
  20. Those who have drunk wine may rule — They may rule that a creeping creature is impure and a frog is pure, without concern, since this is clear to everyone.
  21. Shall we say this follows Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda? — He permits Talmud study after drinking wine, though one may come to understand a law and rule from it. It would not follow the Rabbis, who forbid even Talmud study, and all the more so issuing a ruling.
  22. But Rav would not appoint a lecturer, and so on — Why did he not deliver the public lecture? If Talmud study is permitted, public lectures certainly are.
  23. He cannot avoid issuing rulings — Everyone asks him questions.
  24. Four sin-offerings — One for eating consecrated food while impure, one for eating forbidden fat, one for eating sacrificial meat left past its allotted time, and one for eating on Yom Kippur.
  25. And a guilt-offering — For misuse of consecrated property.
  26. It is not on that account — this liability is not for eating.
Tosafot on Keritot 13b, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. A woman’s milk transmits the impurity of liquids in a quarter-log — One might ask: Since milk is a liquid by Torah law, as the verses cited in Niddah 55b indicate, why does it not transmit impurity in any amount like other liquids? Pesachim 14a discusses liquid on meat, and Berakhot 52a discusses liquid on the outside of a cup; neither would ordinarily involve a quarter-log. Pesachim 17b, however, says that the slaughterhouse liquids are pure only when there is less than a quarter-log. It therefore seems that impurity transmitted by those smaller amounts is only rabbinic; here a quarter-log is required. The verses cited for milk’s status as a liquid are merely scriptural supports.
  2. One who ate impure foods, etc. — Rashi explains that this does not refer to the subsequent entry into the Temple: eating impure foods does not make a person liable for entering it, even if the foods were contaminated by a corpse, since foods cannot become primary sources of impurity; they cannot be purified in a ritual bath. It seems, however, that the case can involve someone who ate the carcass of a kosher bird, or drank an impure liquid such as the blood of a creeping creature, which transmits impurity like its flesh, and then entered the Temple.
  3. And entered the Temple — This means that he entered and performed the Temple service. Entry without performing the service does not make him liable, as the Sifra explains.
  4. And entered the Temple and served — He is liable only if he performs the service, as the passage later derives from the requirement to wash one’s hands and feet. Halakhot Gedolot rules that a priest who drank wine is unfit to recite the priestly blessing. The amount is a quarter-log, as the Sages say that one who drinks a quarter-log of wine must not pray because prayer requires concentration; presumably the priestly blessing requires no more concentration than prayer.
  5. Rav said: The law follows Rabbi Elazar — One might ask: Did Rav not say in Ketubot 10b that someone who ate dates must not issue a legal ruling? That restriction is rabbinic; by Torah law, the prohibition applies specifically to wine.
  6. Four sin offerings and one guilt offering — Why does the list not include a fifth sin offering, for someone who swore not to eat it and then ate it? The list omits prohibitions that can be undone by seeking release. Although consecration can also be undone this way, once the animal has been slaughtered and its blood properly sprinkled, it can no longer be undone. Nor can the case involve a firstborn animal: the Gemara says, ‘He consecrated it,’ whereas a firstborn is consecrated when it emerges from the womb.
  7. And one guilt offering — Why is one liable for misuse of consecrated property by eating leftover sacrificial meat, which has no value? Pesachim 29a says that one who eats consecrated leaven on Passover is not liable for misuse. But that case concerns property consecrated for its value, not an offering consecrated in its own right. Once the leaven becomes forbidden to benefit from, it is worth less than a peruta, so the person has not derived a peruta’s worth of benefit from consecrated property.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Kerisus, Kritot, Kerithoth 13.